Wednesday, 2 October 2013

SWAZI PRINCESS TALKS WITH ‘TERRORISTS’

In an unprecedented move, Princess Sikhanyiso (a.k.a. Pashu) of Swaziland
debated for several hours with banned political movement the People’s United
Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) via her Twitter account on Sunday, even though her
father, Swaziland’s absolute monarch King Mswati III, has branded PUDEMO as
“terrorists” and refuses to negotiate with them, writes Afrika Kontakt.

The debate started with the Princess amiably asking several questions
about PUDEMO, such as “who is your President,” “can you give me an example of a
country that you wish Swaziland to operate similarly to,” “what is your plan to
eradicate poverty,” and “what is your ultimate goal?”

Later in the conversation, Princess Sikhanyiso had some suggestions of
her own in regard to Swaziland’s problems. “Countries suffer from poverty but
they don’t act poor for tv to draw false sympathy from oblivious foreigners,”
she said, seemingly believing that her father was not responsible for the
extreme poverty in a country where two thirds survive on less than a dollar a
day in concluding that “unemployment will be solved by God.”

On the possibilities of PUDEMO interacting with her father, Princess
Sikhanyiso advised PUDEMO to “ask [the governor of the King’s Royal Ludzidzini
palace, Timothy] Mtsetfwa to apologize on your behalf & seek HM’s audience.
You’ll be surprised,” although she seemingly insisted that political parties
such as PUDEMO had no role to play in Swaziland as she claimed that “a house
divided against itself cannot stand. Let the common goal be the peace and
prosperity of Swaziland not organizations.”

So if members of Swaziland’s largest political party PUDEMO are really
such dangerous “terrorists,” then what was the king’s eldest daughter doing
discussing with PUDEMO on Twitter for several hours?

The fact of the matter is that PUDEMO are not terrorists. PUDEMO
advocates a peaceful transition from the present absolute monarchy, via a
negotiation process that includes a national convention and a transitional
period of interim authority towards democracy, like the process in South Africa
in the early nineties.

As PUDEMO Secretary General, Skhumbuzo Phakathi, said in a statement on
Monday, “we have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to peaceful resistance and
dialogue … our struggle is not against the royal family or the king, but about
the capture of the state and the dispensing of benefits to the majority of the
people … Our debate with Princess Sikhanyiso was an opportunity for political
education not just of her but to all those who followed the discussion.”

But being branded a “terrorist” in Swaziland is surprisingly easy. Swaziland’s
infamous Suppression of Terrorism Bill from 2008 defines terrorism very
broadly, for instance as an act that “involves prejudice to national security
or public safety.” Anybody who “solicits support for, or gives support to, any
terrorist group” or even meets with them can be punished with up to 15 years in
prison.

According to Amnesty International, “the failure to restrict the
definition of ‘terrorist act’ in the Suppression of Terrorism Act to the
threatened or actual use of violence against civilians [as defined by the UN
Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights] undermines the
Suppression of Terrorism Act in its entirety.”

Amnesty International has therefore asked Swaziland to repeal or
immediately amend the Terrorism Bill, “because it is an inherently flawed piece
of legislation which is inconsistent with Swaziland’s obligations under
international law and regional human rights law as well as of the Swaziland
Constitution.”

A high-profile example of the inexplicable nature of Swaziland’s
Terrorism Act was when PUDEMO President Mario Masuku was charged with terrorism
in 2008 for a statement about a bridge bombing. After having been imprisoned
for 340 days, his case was laughed out of court in a matter of hours. Even the
courts in Swaziland could not bring themselves to send him to prison for a mere
statement.

Some might see the Princess’s debate on Twitter, together with
Swaziland’s government’s promise to the ILO that they would amend the
Suppression of terrorism Act, as a sign of an increased willingness to discuss
with PUDEMO, however.

But if this is the case, then why was her Twitter profile closed Monday?
And why has the Swazi regime increased spending on security equipment and
supplies fiftyfold since last year even though Swaziland has no external
enemies?